I prefer learning by the presentation of new facts, ideas, arguments. Sadly, this is something you rarely do as your rutted position is only to argue what "YOU" prefer or want...in a vacuum to its effects on everyone else.

At least, baiting you kept it short. And thats a good thing.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Actually, Scott, sugar is definitely more of a problem with poor than rich people. While there are some wealthy who eat too much and get obese, in the main, wealthier people are more healthy and slimmer. This is because expensive foods are often healthier, and the support of health professionals to the rich leads to better behaviour. The poor do not feel they can afford to eat a healthy diet, so they eat crap. And they cannot afford to pay health professionals.

Do you dispute the idea of the greater good for the greater number? We are not talking of living forever, but of maintaining health and fitness throughout our lives.

Scott wrote:See, although I don't feign tobacco 'good' for you, this data is questionable. How can one narrow one's cause of death via second hand smoke exposure uniquely?

1. All data is questionable. Show me some data, any data, and I will question it for you.

2. Compare deaths of people exposed to second-hand smoke and deaths of people not exposed to second-hand smoke, adjust for all other known/knowable factors, and figure out how many extra deaths occur per year in the group exposed to second-hand smoke.

I nor any average person is privileged to the complete data to question it nor would I because it requires way more work than could possible matter. The second hand factors is insignificant to the degree it was in the 70s. The EXTREME opposite has occurred where smokers can't smoke at home, public places, or at 40 meter distances from doorways. This leaves sidewalks and some back alleys. In other words, the measure of any statistics has to be taking in consideration the way smoking was more than extreme in the past. A 'fix' was to use air conditioning static units to collect smoke and worked. But the time that these occurred is not in the complete data yet. Where our parents would both smoke in our enclosed car to an extreme with kids, where the nature of the second hand smoke in places like bars, etc, people may have had justice to question second-hand smoke. The nature is to an absurd extreme that is more about vengeance of those who hated their parents for smoking. There actually was a claim similar to this called "third-hand smoke", with similar 'studies'. This is the 'smell' of smoke on ones' clothes!

This digresses from the taxation factor though that I'm concerned about. That it extorts those with vices by a society that uses the very SIMPLE logical demonstration that tobacco is physically addictive AND tobacco is NOT physically addictive should be enough to assure that the government AND those supporting such laws are NOT being sincere. You don't give a {!#%@} about me. Even if I had another 'world' I could escape to to smoke, you'd still think it 'valid' to maintain taxation. Thus this indicates the bias. Why do you feign MY health or TO blame any costs associated with it?

The contradiction is to the MEANING of "physical addiction": that one has no 'choice' in behaving habitually to some intake; Contrast this with the MEANING of "psychological addiction": that one can 'choose' to stop behaving habitually by mere thoughts and denial. "psychological addiction is thus just a contradiction because it treats the addict as having the POWER to quit, contradicting this same volition by physical addiction.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, Scott, sugar is definitely more of a problem with poor than rich people. While there are some wealthy who eat too much and get obese, in the main, wealthier people are more healthy and slimmer. This is because expensive foods are often healthier, and the support of health professionals to the rich leads to better behaviour. The poor do not feel they can afford to eat a healthy diet, so they eat crap. And they cannot afford to pay health professionals.

Do you dispute the idea of the greater good for the greater number? We are not talking of living forever, but of maintaining health and fitness throughout our lives.

I explained WHY those who ARE in the poorer communities have justice to BE fat! Survival stores the energy from sugar to be used when or where one has periods of greater impoverishment. Its still irrelevant since you, not me, is IMPOSING some burden on you. AND that knowing it will be absurdly outweighed such that the collection of those taxes will not serve those fat people losing weight regardless. You're just taking away what pleasures one is already limited to by default.

You KNOW that while I as a renter lack the freedom to choose smoking or not, wealthier people do. The taxes are progressively greater by percentage to the poor too. On the utilitarian question, not necessarily. (wasn't the 'trolley problem' question raised in another thread?) The 'greater good' inappropriately assigns such a virtue FOR me with NO choice. The 'greater good' would be to reduce the population using taxation penalties should you pass the limit of allowed children! Yet this is considered somehow vile and against human rights!??

The contradiction point I made many times still gets ignored. Can you explain how this is NOT troublesome? Does the 'greater good' also include a right to redirect or blur the truth by presenting a clear contradiction for a reason to tax so that the 'greater quantity' can gain benefits irrelevant to the nature of them NOT being affected one way or another?

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Scott Mayers wrote:... Why does everyone think that poverty equates to being an idiot? ...

I certainly don`t think so. And in fact, I strongly suspect that the poor, just as those who are better off - will correctly understand the need for the reduction in sugar consumption and encourage their representatives to impose the tax.

Scott Mayers wrote:I explained WHY those who ARE in the poorer communities have justice to BE fat!

Actually, its just the reverse: those who ARE in the poorer communities have justice to BE free from the ravages of excessive sugar.

Learn and grow.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I think it is obvious to anyone reading your posts that your opinions are strongly influenced by the fact that you are an addict. Sorry, but that does not make your posts more rational. Being an addict just drives irrational opinions.

I have little sympathy for you, since you had the choice when younger not to smoke. You claim you were driven into it by peer pressure. That is, in itself, a form of serious weakness. We all experienced peer pressure at some stage, and most of us on this forum went our own way in spite of that pressure. As the saying goes 'you made your own bed, now lie in it.' You made yourself into an addict. No one else forced you. You now have to live with the consequences. If you are smart, you will make the effort to quit, even though it is not easy. But millions before you have done it, and succeeded.

Scott Mayers wrote:...Does the 'greater good' also include a right to redirect or blur the truth by presenting a clear contradiction for a reason to tax so that the 'greater quantity' can gain benefits irrelevant to the nature of them NOT being affected one way or another?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

That is funny. That tomato decisions shows what a bunch of idiots the supreme court are. Duh!

I disagree completely.

Words MEAN: how they are defined/used. If the fruit and vegetable industry has called tomatoes a vegetable for ever...why should some scumbag fruit seller try to avoid tax by trying to flip to a scientific definition SOLELY to avoid the tax?

CUSTOM AND USAGE. Its why you can't sue the Lumber Yard for giving you a 1.5 inch by 3.5 inch piece of wood and calling it a 2 x 4. I only get pissed when the wood is 1 3/8th by 3 3/8ths. When will the insanity stop?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Words MEAN: how they are defined/used. If the fruit and vegetable industry has called tomatoes a vegetable for ever...why should some scumbag fruit seller try to avoid tax by trying to flip to a scientific definition SOLELY to avoid the tax?

He was probably inspired by the UK's most expensive taxation case as to whether "Jaffa Cakes" were cakes or biscuits and thus attracted different VAT treatment. Jaffa Cakes were found to be cakes

The best definitions are those laid down by hard science. Tomatoes are fruit. There is absolutely no justification for calling them vegetables, except something ludicrous. Of course supreme court judges are not scientists, and are not rational in their judgements.

You may not be aware of this, but in Abe Lincoln's time, the American supreme court passed a resolution making slavery legal and justified under the constitution, despite the constitution saying absolutely nothing about slavery. It took Lincoln himself to shoot that stupidity down in flames. The American supreme court more recently passed a resolution making the second amendment relate to personal liberty, rather than the establishment of a militia, which was its original purpose. Such decisions are not made by rational thought. They are made by idiocy or by corruption (taking bribes). You decide which.

I'm not (at all!) sure, but it would seem there was (according to the side notes of that Wiki page) a "Prior history Judgment for defendant, 39 F. 109 (C.C. S.D.N.Y. 1889)" regarding that 1883 tax law/traffic act. Apparently it took the Supremes to eventually make the fruit a veggie...

The best definitions are those laid down by hard science. Tomatoes are fruit. There is absolutely no justification for calling them vegetables, except something ludicrous. Of course supreme court judges are not scientists, and are not rational in their judgements.

The court didn't make tomatoes a vegetable. They declared it tariffable as a vegetable. They didn't give a damn about its botanical characteristics.

In other words, it was a tax law decision, not botany, nor did they claim anything different.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Scott wrote:See, although I don't feign tobacco 'good' for you, this data is questionable. How can one narrow one's cause of death via second hand smoke exposure uniquely?

1. All data is questionable. Show me some data, any data, and I will question it for you.

2. Compare deaths of people exposed to second-hand smoke and deaths of people not exposed to second-hand smoke, adjust for all other known/knowable factors, and figure out how many extra deaths occur per year in the group exposed to second-hand smoke.

I nor any average person is privileged to the complete data to question it nor would I because it requires way more work than could possible matter.

You're right, no scientific study of this kind is ever perfect, therefore they should all be done away with. Only superhumans could possibly get such information correct. We must await the arrival of these Übermensch before submitting to any further analysis.

Scott Mayers wrote:... Why does everyone think that poverty equates to being an idiot? ...

I certainly don`t think so. And in fact, I strongly suspect that the poor, just as those who are better off - will correctly understand the need for the reduction in sugar consumption and encourage their representatives to impose the tax.

Based on assuming everyone thinks as you do?

Sugar taxation is a con, period. I already agree to taxes in general but this is an intentional targeted one meant to easily manipulate society by a SPECIFIC religious belief that certain things are certainly SINS. And it makes me ashamed how some of you asserting skepticism do not notice this. I'd be more impressed if you just understood the logic but, as I do with morals in general, to admit of no validity to ANY correct law. This TYPE of moral judgement is one of intentional political deception logically. And THIS is what I think needs to be exposed.

And I'm already aware that many of my peers here don't yet follow the depths of the logic I deal with. So I can understand but then cannot influence you because you think your logic is sound when it isn't. And this is, of course, only granting you charity that you are NOT one of those intentionally deceiving for some active political purpose.

The function of this law is a means NOT TO HELP THOSE who have some 'addiction' to sugar that causes any of the health concerns anyone raises. That is the rhetoric, just as I pointed out by the nature of the contradictions involved with "physical versus psychological" addiction that is being clearly evaded.

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

I think it is obvious to anyone reading your posts that your opinions are strongly influenced by the fact that you are an addict. Sorry, but that does not make your posts more rational. Being an addict just drives irrational opinions.

I have little sympathy for you, since you had the choice when younger not to smoke. You claim you were driven into it by peer pressure. That is, in itself, a form of serious weakness. We all experienced peer pressure at some stage, and most of us on this forum went our own way in spite of that pressure. As the saying goes 'you made your own bed, now lie in it.' You made yourself into an addict. No one else forced you. You now have to live with the consequences. If you are smart, you will make the effort to quit, even though it is not easy. But millions before you have done it, and succeeded.

I am motivated BECAUSE of my experience as a smoker how I've learned what addiction involves and to HOW the politics surrounding this issue is not as clear as it seems from the outside. But this is NOT the case for sugar for me. I like it but can do without it and even if the price was naturally higher, although I wouldn't like it, if it is due to natural supply and demand, the price would not bother me.

It is the concern I raised about the intents for the government to use sugar as a means to EXTORT the public as a sin because of a contradictory justification that illustrates that the intent IS about an emotional bias and taboo (a 'religious' non-rational hate) AND how governments will utilize the convenient PHYSICAL addiction factor to excuse it with the added opposite pretense that it is also NOT PHYSICALLY addictive, since it is assumed one can simply choose to quit. The second underlined point above demonstrates THAT YOU are at least excusing your willingness to look the other way based on your own hatred of sugar (or whatever particular things you don't like) rather than to be concerned about whether it is fair or not.

How do you pretend to care for those who might possibly start as though 'victims', while the very instant such a person begins an addictive drug that victimized, the victim becomes instantly treated as "villains" who are just too 'stupid' to have been suckered to try and so earns anything the drug could do thereafter. In other words, if tobacco is the VILLAIN, why do you also ironically turn the villain, tobacco, into being VICTIM-like, something anyone could easily overpower? Note the comparison to those who get abused to feel they are treated as similarly stupid for going BACK to the abuser. We actually understand the victim but it is only about those defending the accused to which this is valid. So while sincerely less clear in the legal system regarding two real people who are involved, for those who smoke (or eat sugar) are between a real person and a non-person, tobacco/sugar.

So the 'apparent' accusation against the abused to have any responsibility for something non-human that caused the problem lacks any need to be cautious NOT to BLAME the drug as the villain because they won't complain of foul defense. But treating the victim (the addict) to something essentially physical, DOES make the ones BLAMING THE VICTIM unjustified. This is only an accident for cases between two people because the accused MAY be innocent until proven guilty. But it has already been established tobacco IS guilty forever by its fixed nature. So if it is certainly the villain no matter what, the sincere people believing in this would be supporting Capital punishment for tobacco, a complete BAN on the SUPPLY. Since this is NOT the case, then the taxation is specifically being accepted by supporters for CLEAR DISGUST OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SMOKE, with indifference to tobacco itself!

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Your morality, Scott, is not based on the rule of greater good for the greater number, which is the best basis for any moral code. Yours is based on intangibles. I believe in tangible benefits, like NOT dying of lung cancer.

Taxing tobacco works in limiting those who take up the addiction. I support that tax, since it clearly is to the benefit of the people as a whole. Taxing sugar is more problematic, because there is insufficient data to show that it would work in reducing the problems of excess sugar consumption. If it could be shown with clear cut scientific data that the tax did improve health, then I would support it.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your morality, Scott, is not based on the rule of greater good for the greater number, which is the best basis for any moral code. Yours is based on intangibles. I believe in tangible benefits, like NOT dying of lung cancer.

Taxing tobacco works in limiting those who take up the addiction. I support that tax, since it clearly is to the benefit of the people as a whole. Taxing sugar is more problematic, because there is insufficient data to show that it would work in reducing the problems of excess sugar consumption. If it could be shown with clear cut scientific data that the tax did improve health, then I would support it.

You then agree temporarily to not tax. I disagree not to your intent about the utilitarian ideal but to the nature of reality apart from people. Some believe oddly that anarchy can truly work. I do not. So government is still necessary even though no correct ideal or moral can be derived. To the utilitarian ideal, government is what I would prefer this rather than to some minority where the opposite must suffer instead. My concern is to the purpose of taking some majority position (the utilitarian ideal), relates to what individuals do that have no significant impact on the whole in which the members of the same majority have equal personal (private) concerns that they rightfully feel should not be of the domain of government. For instance, you have a 'right' (at present) to jerk off in private at home. While some will certainly believe this should be a concern to which laws should be made to either ban or exploit (where they can't ban), it is hypocritical to accept that one particular private act of equal kind that is NOT a function of government's purpose but rather of some church, should be allowed.

Since morality DOES NOT EXIST to nature, it is merely created by us where we must deal among each other personally. However, the domain of one's private issues that do NOT affect others in the community outside of their religious mind believing they have some 'duty' to "fix" someone, such private issues should not have ANY part in politics other than to have some constitutional means to prevent violation of this for the sake of the utilitarian majority. This is more optimal than to allow such laws to involve one's personal private concerns. If it was, then thoughts themselves should be allowed to be a function of government!

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Scott Mayers wrote:... Why does everyone think that poverty equates to being an idiot? ...

I certainly don`t think so. And in fact, I strongly suspect that the poor, just as those who are better off - will correctly understand the need for the reduction in sugar consumption and encourage their representatives to impose the tax.

Based on assuming everyone thinks as you do?

Sugar taxation is a con, period. I already agree to taxes in general but this is an intentional targeted one meant to easily manipulate society by a SPECIFIC religious belief that certain things are certainly SINS. And it makes me ashamed how some of you asserting skepticism do not notice this. I'd be more impressed if you just understood the logic but, as I do with morals in general, to admit of no validity to ANY correct law. This TYPE of moral judgement is one of intentional political deception logically. And THIS is what I think needs to be exposed.

And I'm already aware that many of my peers here don't yet follow the depths of the logic I deal with. So I can understand but then cannot influence you because you think your logic is sound when it isn't. And this is, of course, only granting you charity that you are NOT one of those intentionally deceiving for some active political purpose.

The function of this law is a means NOT TO HELP THOSE who have some 'addiction' to sugar that causes any of the health concerns anyone raises. That is the rhetoric, just as I pointed out by the nature of the contradictions involved with "physical versus psychological" addiction that is being clearly evaded.

No Scott, I do not think that everyone thinks as I do – and you are a perfect example. In fact you suggested that everyone thought that poor people were idiots. Should I have used your retort at that juncture? Low blow.

And it isn`t a religious belief – it is science at work, having identified cause and effect and proposed a solution to a problem that is affecting millions. Now I certainly do not claim to be the best logician, but your bait and switch approach is simply appalling. Reducing sugar intake in order to reduce diabetes and obesely - is NOT political deception, but rather claiming that the WHO is somehow in the pockets of whichever government might eventually, one day, take their advice, and is somehow not motivated by the greater good – IS.

And neither I nor has anyone else claimed that a sugar tax law is motivated by a desire to help someone with an addiction. If it were an addiction, we might see a ban on sugar, maybe new prisons being built, or just possibly medical support for people with withdrawal symptoms. Rather it has been observed that people buy fewer of things that are expensive, and thus taxing sugar makes sense – as probably the least invasive and least administratively complex or costly - of possible solutions to an epidemic of diabetes and obesity.

Scott Mayers wrote:... Why does everyone think that poverty equates to being an idiot? ...

I certainly don`t think so. And in fact, I strongly suspect that the poor, just as those who are better off - will correctly understand the need for the reduction in sugar consumption and encourage their representatives to impose the tax.

Based on assuming everyone thinks as you do?

Sugar taxation is a con, period. I already agree to taxes in general but this is an intentional targeted one meant to easily manipulate society by a SPECIFIC religious belief that certain things are certainly SINS. And it makes me ashamed how some of you asserting skepticism do not notice this. I'd be more impressed if you just understood the logic but, as I do with morals in general, to admit of no validity to ANY correct law. This TYPE of moral judgement is one of intentional political deception logically. And THIS is what I think needs to be exposed.

And I'm already aware that many of my peers here don't yet follow the depths of the logic I deal with. So I can understand but then cannot influence you because you think your logic is sound when it isn't. And this is, of course, only granting you charity that you are NOT one of those intentionally deceiving for some active political purpose.

The function of this law is a means NOT TO HELP THOSE who have some 'addiction' to sugar that causes any of the health concerns anyone raises. That is the rhetoric, just as I pointed out by the nature of the contradictions involved with "physical versus psychological" addiction that is being clearly evaded.

No Scott, I do not think that everyone thinks as I do – and you are a perfect example. In fact you suggested that everyone thought that poor people were idiots. Should I have used your retort at that juncture? Low blow.

And it isn`t a religious belief – it is science at work, having identified cause and effect and proposed a solution to a problem that is affecting millions. Now I certainly do not claim to be the best logician, but your bait and switch approach is simply appalling. Reducing sugar intake in order to reduce diabetes and obesely - is NOT political deception, but rather claiming that the WHO is somehow in the pockets of whichever government might eventually, one day, take their advice, and is somehow not motivated by the greater good – IS.

And neither I nor has anyone else claimed that a sugar tax law is motivated by a desire to help someone with an addiction. If it were an addiction, we might see a ban on sugar, maybe new prisons being built, or just possibly medical support for people with withdrawal symptoms. Rather it has been observed that people buy fewer of things that are expensive, and thus taxing sugar makes sense – as probably the least invasive and least administratively complex or costly - of possible solutions to an epidemic of diabetes and obesity.

But I don't share your apparent concern for obesity nor diabetes either. Women today are campaigning to eliminate breast cancer. Should we tax breasts too? I don't know if you'll get the link, but note that I did open a distinct thread on "Addiction..." because of this discussion. Sugar is being treated in kind to tobacco in that we are naturally AND PHYSICALLY "addicted" to sugar via our internal NEED for it that is normally sparse. So this IS about addiction. I also think that with regards to 'obesity' by itself, this is more of a cultural bias by those treating both ones' apparent looks AND the ideals of one to assume what is worthy of a person's health a virtue. This is fair. But if we allow such laws based on these bases with sincerity, it is equally an open door for many other vices based on relatively minor concern. Is there any basis to think that obesity is somehow prevalent and sincerely harmful, ...especially of others? Diabetes too is relatively controllable by what one eats regardless of their natural tendency to become obese. I think other more significant issues have to be dealt with or we risk opening a Pandora's Box to many similar things, like taxing religions, for instance?

(I may not be religious and realize the harms they cause [more deaths than diabetes and obesity, I'm sure], but I still think religion is a similar right of individuals that should be restricted from government hands due to those who treat them 'privately')

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Most sugar consumed these days is 'hidden' sugar. Things like ketchup and canned foods which contain lots of added sugar to make people like it more and eat more, thus increasing company profits. This is definitely not to the benefit of the consumer, but is done because of the greed of big business. Do you truly think that this practice should be permitted to continue without hindrance? Do you think big business should be permitted to harm the health of ordinary people in order to make more profit?

My own approach to soft drinks would not be a tax. It would be a legal limit on how much sugar can be put into those drinks. It is possible to use less sugar, combined with a herbal or artificial sweetener to give a similar flavor without the health harm. We have legal limits on how much alcohol can be sold in a drink, so why not do the same for sugar?

Scott Mayers wrote:... Why does everyone think that poverty equates to being an idiot? ...

I certainly don`t think so. And in fact, I strongly suspect that the poor, just as those who are better off - will correctly understand the need for the reduction in sugar consumption and encourage their representatives to impose the tax.

Based on assuming everyone thinks as you do?

Sugar taxation is a con, period. I already agree to taxes in general but this is an intentional targeted one meant to easily manipulate society by a SPECIFIC religious belief that certain things are certainly SINS. And it makes me ashamed how some of you asserting skepticism do not notice this. I'd be more impressed if you just understood the logic but, as I do with morals in general, to admit of no validity to ANY correct law. This TYPE of moral judgement is one of intentional political deception logically. And THIS is what I think needs to be exposed.

And I'm already aware that many of my peers here don't yet follow the depths of the logic I deal with. So I can understand but then cannot influence you because you think your logic is sound when it isn't. And this is, of course, only granting you charity that you are NOT one of those intentionally deceiving for some active political purpose.

The function of this law is a means NOT TO HELP THOSE who have some 'addiction' to sugar that causes any of the health concerns anyone raises. That is the rhetoric, just as I pointed out by the nature of the contradictions involved with "physical versus psychological" addiction that is being clearly evaded.

No Scott, I do not think that everyone thinks as I do – and you are a perfect example. In fact you suggested that everyone thought that poor people were idiots. Should I have used your retort at that juncture? Low blow.

And it isn`t a religious belief – it is science at work, having identified cause and effect and proposed a solution to a problem that is affecting millions. Now I certainly do not claim to be the best logician, but your bait and switch approach is simply appalling. Reducing sugar intake in order to reduce diabetes and obesely - is NOT political deception, but rather claiming that the WHO is somehow in the pockets of whichever government might eventually, one day, take their advice, and is somehow not motivated by the greater good – IS.

And neither I nor has anyone else claimed that a sugar tax law is motivated by a desire to help someone with an addiction. If it were an addiction, we might see a ban on sugar, maybe new prisons being built, or just possibly medical support for people with withdrawal symptoms. Rather it has been observed that people buy fewer of things that are expensive, and thus taxing sugar makes sense – as probably the least invasive and least administratively complex or costly - of possible solutions to an epidemic of diabetes and obesity.

But I don't share your apparent concern for obesity nor diabetes either. Women today are campaigning to eliminate breast cancer. Should we tax breasts too? I don't know if you'll get the link, but note that I did open a distinct thread on "Addiction..." because of this discussion. Sugar is being treated in kind to tobacco in that we are naturally AND PHYSICALLY "addicted" to sugar via our internal NEED for it that is normally sparse. So this IS about addiction. I also think that with regards to 'obesity' by itself, this is more of a cultural bias by those treating both ones' apparent looks AND the ideals of one to assume what is worthy of a person's health a virtue. This is fair. But if we allow such laws based on these bases with sincerity, it is equally an open door for many other vices based on relatively minor concern. Is there any basis to think that obesity is somehow prevalent and sincerely harmful, ...especially of others? Diabetes too is relatively controllable by what one eats regardless of their natural tendency to become obese. I think other more significant issues have to be dealt with or we risk opening a Pandora's Box to many similar things, like taxing religions, for instance?

(I may not be religious and realize the harms they cause [more deaths than diabetes and obesity, I'm sure], but I still think religion is a similar right of individuals that should be restricted from government hands due to those who treat them 'privately')

Scott, we are not going to agree. I believe in government - representative government, doing things that improve the lives of people who are being harmed by things that are relatively easy to address. I like seatbelt laws (a tax on cars, since seatbelts cost money), restrictions on driving and drinking (a tax on bars and alcohol, since less can be drunk), restrictions on public smoking (a tax on establishments which must either turn away customers or build separate rooms), etc. - and sugar fits right in there. You are the one that is linking sugar with addiction - not the WHO.

It may indeed be a slippery slope - and good if it is, since that means that more can be addressed. And God yes - lets tax religion - or at least remove their tax exempt status. About time IMO.

But as for breasts - we all have them, men and women too, and they are already taxed - really, they are - as part of the body and the economic gain derived from it, so I see no need to double down there.

TJrandom wrote:It may indeed be a slippery slope - and good if it is, since that means that more can be addressed. And God yes - lets tax religion - or at least remove their tax exempt status. About time IMO.

[/quote]The slippery slope argument/position is one of the worst there is because EVERY POSITION is a slippery slope to some negative consequences, good ones too, so the issue is not the declaration of a slippery slope but rather the likelihood of the good and bad consequences and the summing of them up==something that almost never happens, except you did TJ just above. Hooray for the slippery slope of taxing unhealthy conduct.

I agree.

Otherwise we don't have a slippery slope. Rather we have the locked in position of the consuming public being treated as cows in a feed lot get stuffed with what makes them more attractive to their Overlords. In the sugar case, the Agrabusinesses that want to profit off the ignorance of the public.

Simple.

EDIT: Very late edit to correctly quote TJ above and remove the source as Scott. My error, now corrected.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a point, Scott, that you should consider.

Most sugar consumed these days is 'hidden' sugar. Things like ketchup and canned foods which contain lots of added sugar to make people like it more and eat more, thus increasing company profits. This is definitely not to the benefit of the consumer, but is done because of the greed of big business. Do you truly think that this practice should be permitted to continue without hindrance? Do you think big business should be permitted to harm the health of ordinary people in order to make more profit?

My own approach to soft drinks would not be a tax. It would be a legal limit on how much sugar can be put into those drinks. It is possible to use less sugar, combined with a herbal or artificial sweetener to give a similar flavor without the health harm. We have legal limits on how much alcohol can be sold in a drink, so why not do the same for sugar?

I still disagree. That is just the con of the "Super-size Me" fans who think that McDonald's is at fault in the same way an addicting drug is BY NATURE! By this, it is clear that those who THINK that some companies are conspiring to harm 'us', in reality, they are operating by the NATURE of 'corporations' and so while they ARE 'conspiring', the area to tackle is CORPORATE LAWS. But NO ONE on any side of the political spectrum desires to deal with the LOGICAL classifications. Instead, you declare that certain "Scams" of particular industries are FORCEFULLY OVERINDULGING us all, as though we are all {!#%@} as minimally wealthy as the union-working upper-middle class people (and up). Such complaining that:

X GIVES MORE THAN USUAL THINGS FOR Y DOLLARS

arrogantly turns the nature of people to demand MORE X for LESS Y. And the rhetoric is BS to the poor who see this as about RICH snobs thinking this logic is necessary to ban certain product or demand reduction is like saying, LETS MAKE EVERYONE PAY MORE X for LESS Y!! When the nature of ones' choices exist for the wealthier, they are blind to the realities of the real poor. Why or how does making such laws for any limitations act 'fair' when it penalizes the poor with extreme prejudice when the CURE for the problems in the wealthier classes is as EASY AS LEARNING TO SAY, "No" to you children.

The kind of thinking reminds me of:

When we grew up and went to school There were certain teachers who wouldHurt the children in any way they could

"OOF!" [someone being hit]

By pouring their derision Upon anything we didAnd exposing every weakness However carefully hidden by the kids [then the following justification that we are supposed to feel sorry for:]But in the town, it was well knownWhen they [the teacher or abusers in general] got home at night, their fat andPsychopathic wives would thrash themWithin inches of their lives.

["Happiest Days of our lives" Pink Floyd's The Wall

You won't get it if you don't notice that the comfortable people in authority [like the teacher] think their interpretation of abuses in society are about mundane things. The movie shows the teacher at home being berated for, we can assume, is some trivial etiquette at the table which the album brings up as, "How can you eat your meat if you don't eat your pudding. [SHOCKED!:] How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?"

The concern by some of you to think that sugar should be limited or taxed because they make US fat, is an issue for those like the teacher who feels he's being abused by his wife's relatively trivial nudges. They are trivial like COMPLAINING that some company is giving MORE for LESS as though this is a 'bad' thing. It is like you think it more important to be concerned about whether you first each your meat before you can have your pudding and so decide to raise the price of pudding ??

WHAT??

And your too blind to see that you are actually becoming the abuser for those based on such 'etiquette' issues when people are really starving out there.? And if we were to continue to accept your 'education', controls and authorities, we become like children being expected to put on blinders and trust that you are not just leading us to the meat grinder! For people already being unable to afford meat, sugar is more naturally available and raising its price isn't going to enable the poor people be able to buy meat now. They just starve altogether or are forced to eat grass with the rest of the cows. ...which get led to the meat grinder so you could HAVE your meat, the pudding and in that correct order!

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

TJrandom wrote:Scott, we are not going to agree. I believe in government - representative government, doing things that improve the lives of people who are being harmed by things that are relatively easy to address. I like seatbelt laws (a tax on cars, since seatbelts cost money), restrictions on driving and drinking (a tax on bars and alcohol, since less can be drunk), restrictions on public smoking (a tax on establishments which must either turn away customers or build separate rooms), etc. - and sugar fits right in there. You are the one that is linking sugar with addiction - not the WHO.

It may indeed be a slippery slope - and good if it is, since that means that more can be addressed. And God yes - lets tax religion - or at least remove their tax exempt status. About time IMO.

But as for breasts - we all have them, men and women too, and they are already taxed - really, they are - as part of the body and the economic gain derived from it, so I see no need to double down there.

You completely and falsely misinterpret the me and the issue at stake. Who says that I'm against taxes? I'm against the arrogance of sin taxes that are appeals to feign concern about the individual, like one beating off in the bathroom. If someone could determine HOW to tax masturbation, this would occur and is the kind of thing that I'm pissed about. Seatbelts are about how these not only affect the private choice of the individual but to all people. One opting NOT to wear a seatbelt in the backseat, for instance, imposes upon the others in the car as they act like projectiles which can defeat the others of the same right.

Liberalism is about allowing people the maximum personal right to do what they want, when they want, so long as it doesn't impose upon the other of the same right.

Issues like this is WHY those normally in sync with this concept are forced away as the Conservatives elitists within the supposed 'liberal' view are just as intolerant and more so, when it comes to specific "scapegoats" in society. You sacrifice not yourself, but those in the poorer community when you arrogantly insist on a tax that punishes everyone for necessities you personally think is 'evil' and do it across the board. [see my last post above]

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Scott Mayers wrote:It may indeed be a slippery slope - and good if it is, since that means that more can be addressed. And God yes - lets tax religion - or at least remove their tax exempt status. About time IMO.

The slippery slope argument/position is one of the worst there is because EVERY POSITION is a slippery slope to some negative consequences, good ones too, so the issue is not the declaration of a slippery slope but rather the likelihood of the good and bad consequences and the summing of them up==something that almost never happens, except you did TJ just above. Hooray for the slippery slope of taxing unhealthy conduct.

I agree.

Otherwise we don't have a slippery slope. Rather we have the locked in position of the consuming public being treated as cows in a feed lot get stuffed with what makes them more attractive to their Overlords. In the sugar case, the Agrabusinesses that want to profit off the ignorance of the public.

Simple.

PLEASE FIX THE ABOVE QUOTE. That is NOT anything I said and misrepresents who I am profoundly.

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Companies adding extra sugar is NOT giving more for less. Sugar is cheap. It is the fishhook in the bait at the end of the fishing line. Bite into it and suffer! A fisherman does not put that bait on for the benefit of the fish. Nor do the companies add sugar to their products to help the consumer. Quite the contrary. It is a scam to catch more dollars.

Companies adding extra sugar is NOT giving more for less. Sugar is cheap. It is the fishhook in the bait at the end of the fishing line. Bite into it and suffer! A fisherman does not put that bait on for the benefit of the fish. Nor do the companies add sugar to their products to help the consumer. Quite the contrary. It is a scam to catch more dollars.

But the difference is that we already KNOW the problems of sugar personally and so our private option to choose is not a problem for those clearly sugary products available.

As to products that contain sugar which you may think is 'hidden' and deceptive, this still is NOT the case. If you buy soup that contains it, you'd see the ingredients listed to allow you the right to learn. (Note that this very thing has been REMOVED here in Canada by the government, on tobacco products! That is, we no longer can determine nicotine content or its strength.....AND THAT is intentional deception!!)

I prefer foods that have more and not less. I came from a family in which we ate everything on our plate and were not simply allowed to OPT out of what our parents provided. I didn't like certain foods but this doesn't mean that I as a child should be the one to deny what is presented and get what I want (like sweets with sugar). But this generation is of parents who lack the will to remotely discipline for even anything and oppositely thinks it appropriate to be super provisional to their demands as though the kid is the parent. THIS is likely where may be coming from. Since parents now think by removing the product or making it harder to receive, they can ease out of their onus of disappointing their kids by saying no. So they think it is up to society to be the parent since at least the kid won't hate their real parent for daring to say 'no, you can't have that'.

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Most people, Scott, do not read the list of what is in food, and many of those that do, do not understand what they are reading. So for most people, the added sugar is hidden sugar, and the whole thing is a scam to induce people to consume more, because extra sweetness makes it more attractive.

Scott: long continuing FAILURE to STOP identifying YOUR values as what is good for society. Hint: YOU are not society...society is everyone. I don't have kiddies but don't object to paying property tax that mostly goes to support basic kiddie education. I don't have a problem with the system. The system educated me.... time to give back.

I'm an individual .............. AND ........... a member of society. Why make it such a conflict?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Most people, Scott, do not read the list of what is in food, and many of those that do, do not understand what they are reading. So for most people, the added sugar is hidden sugar, and the whole thing is a scam to induce people to consume more, because extra sweetness makes it more attractive.

Damn rights! I actually LIKE sweetened vegetables, for instance, that those like Green Giant sells because is saves me putting it on myself. It does taste better and is the point of eating tasty food. Otherwise, let's do what we do with animals and only sell a fixed 'bag' of essential food that provides all we need nutritionally without variety? I actually thought this would be cool for some time because I wasn't a big eater anyways and thought it would be so simple to shop for. We wouldn't need brand named products that compete based ON taste, just 'claims' of healthier People-food options that are shelved along with other animal food supplies. It could reduce the whole grocery shopping experience to one shelf!!

I learned about reading labels early on and is an example of what could be at least taught. The reason it is not as popular is because such skepticism leads to thinking about simpler grocery experiences as the one I thought of above. The taxing concern might be like simply having that one people-food shelf without variety, but to have all the rest of the groceries have an INDEPENDENT TAX for each thing (because they are all relative 'vices' since they serve some undue health risks). We already have general food taxes now. But particular tax controls on specific items, especially vices, will be used in a way more dangerous way by government systems because they would base all demands of these vices as HIGH as they can for those MOST necessarily loved. And the flexibility they have would remove any virtue of the market at all as the flexibility of the shoppers actually decreases. The government, even most democratic, would still appeal to the lowest common denominator of the management (representatives in government): the virtue of the tax to provide extra resources in general. This though is the problem of Communism, regardless of its intentional virtues.

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Your ideas on individual liberty should be leading you to the conclusion I suggest. If you want to add sugar when you cook, that is your right as a free person. But to have it added secretly is to take away the right of another free person to decide for him/herself.

NOte that I do not really want a tax on sugar in food. I want legal limits on how much is permitted to be added. If you decide to add more sugar afterwards, that is your business. But it should not be forced onto you.

Scotts basic approach to all issues: Its ME, MEEEEEE, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE..... all the way down.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

The rise of diabetes prevalence, related to the global increase in body-mass index, given the costs of treating the disease and the related increases in cardiovascular risks, poses one of the more important challenges to health systems in the coming years.